Meghan Markle and Prince Harry News and Updates Part 3

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If security was the reason they left, why was their own published statement on their departure all about their complaints regarding the Royal Rota (press)? Why did they not state the actual reason they were leaving? They are trying to rewrite history and make themselves sound less greedy.

Here is their reasoning, as they first told it to the public, before they starting rewriting things.

https://www.townandcountrymag.com/society/tradition/a30480923/prince-harry-megahn-markle-royal-rota-system/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Harry has “no money”?! He inherited $10 million from Diana! Sorry if that isn’t enough to live on, smh.

It’s not enough to cover security AND live when you’re getting death threats from White supremacists.

It was their choice to leave.

DP. I think they made the right choice. They were sacrificing their mental well-being in the UK for physical security. The UK tabloid was waging a constant campaign against Meghan with total lies (remember Megs' Commandments? - they came out in recanted it later) and quite frankly - the Sussexs were still receiving death threats in the UK as well.

And did you forget the whole impetus for them fleeing the UK was the BRF refusing not only titles for Archie but also the security that Harry has received his whole life?

Harassers were arrested for sending fake anthrax to Kensington Palace addressed to the couple, another man was sent to jail for calling Harry a race traitor, and another harasser showed up at Meghan's public engagement.

Royal family security is high-level but with Charles/William trying to strip their newborn of that same security, knowing what kind of threats they were receiving, I'd leave too.

This is false. Charles didn’t try to strip a newborn of security. He just decided to stop paying for it. Believe it or not, lots of adults support themselves and pay their own expenses.

Is that your way of declaring 'alternative facts'?

I'm seriously asking. Because Archie was born in the United Kingdom and taken home to Windsor Castle grounds. He was a newborn stripped of security.

Which makes me think back to the time period from May 2019 - November 2019 when Meghan didn't appear in public with her baby unless they were out of the country. She was afraid. Going on a foreign tour guaranteed high-level royal protection officers for her child. But in his own country - he was left defenseless.

Its even more odious that despite Charles & Andrew's acrimonious relationship the security for his daughters was never stripped until they reached the age of 18.

Defenseless? Yeah I don’t think so. Do you think if Meghan and Archie appeared in public and were attacked, the family’s security would have just stood by and let the baby be kidnapped or murdered? Maybe that would happen in a soap opera or something but that’s not real life.

In any case, if Meghan is so scared for her safety, then she made a really bad decision to go on Oprah. Any security consultant would advise her to keep a low profile.

Did you forget that someone broke into their home looking for Archie, but he was out with the nanny at the time. H&M was not with them, and the security was with H$M, not the nanny and Archie.

I disagree with your assessment about the interview. They needed to bring the darkness into the light. Why do you think they need to cower in fear and go underground? And doing the interview has made more people aware of the dangers they are facing as a family.

The interview only succeeded in making them look like entitled and whiny.

Really? You think the entire global audience totaling 60+ million disapproved?

I for one looked up the expected release date of their Netflix documentary!

Their entire schtick is built around grievance with the BRF. The same BRF without which they’d be nothing. They’ve certainly succeeded in spectacularly monetizing that, to give them due credit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So how do they decide which paparazzi to sue when pics of Archie are published? I guess not the ones they leak on purpose (Exhibit A: last week’s pic) which is all the more reason that these two are hard to take seriously.

+ 1.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Charles also stripped royal security from his hated ex-wife. Guess what happened to her within 12 months.

She didn’t wear her seatbelt and thus died from her injuries in an accident with her seatbeltless billionaire boyfriend while running from paparazzi.

Well she would not have need to run from the paparazzi if she had security. Millions of people have survived auto accidents without seatbelts. Diana grew up at a time when seatbelts were not always required.

Not wearing a seatbelt turned out to be a bad idea, didn’t it? It’s been known for decades that safety belts save lives. If Diana somehow didn’t know that (did she think they were just for decoration?), that’s on her.

Also, even celebrities with security get followed by paparazzi. Did you really not know this? And Diana was very wealthy. She and her boyfriend could have afforded as much security as they could ever desire.

She was not flown through the window of the car. Plenty of people die with and without seatbelts. Plenty of people survive with or without seatbelts. That car was mangled. She wasn’t surviving it. The driver survived because of the airbag.

So you are arguing that there’s no chance Diana would have survived even with a seat belt? Do you have more knowledge in this area than the experts who have suggested otherwise? I’m guessing you don’t. Stop pretending like Diana not wearing a seatbelt was a good idea. That’s absurd.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:None of the queens other grandchildren or great grandchildren have full time security, apart from William and his family because they are the heirs.

Same with the titles, great grandchildren of the monarch don’t get titles, unless they are the children of the heir.

This has all been explained 1000 times. Meghan wanted the Cambridge treatment, not the Zara/Peter/Eugenie/Beatrice treatment they were entitled too.

Zara/Peter/Eugenie/Beatrice are not working royals, let alone Senior Royals, and were not being sent around by the BRF as representatives. In less than a year Meghan and Harry were sent to 10 countries on behalf of the Queen.

It’s shortsightedness and spiteful. What exactly was the Royal family thinking would happen the next time the Sussex’s were asked to go on tour and they had to leave their 1 yr old behind with no security?

Actually there was an incident when they were abroad and Archie was targeted. He had no one but the nanny. They announced their departure shortly after returning to the U.K.

Evidence? Also, how was the nanny able to stop the “targeting”? Because we all know that nothing happened to Archie.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Harry has “no money”?! He inherited $10 million from Diana! Sorry if that isn’t enough to live on, smh.

It’s not enough to cover security AND live when you’re getting death threats from White supremacists.

No one told them to move back to America. They could have been well-protected in Canada.

How? They still had to pay for their own security in Canada. Their own living expenses. They would have still required earning an income whether it was Canada or the USA. And why are you begrudging them from wanting to work and earn their keep?

DP. Then they should go ahead and do that. Stop whining about daddy cutting them off. Stop whining about how everyone was mean to them. These two are insanely wealthy and privileged but they can’t stop whining about how everyone has victimized them.

Most grown adults have to pay for their own living expenses. But we don’t cry about it constantly.

It’s funny how people can see and hear the same thing, but have different interpretations. Fair enough. I did not hear, nor do I see whining and complaining. They were asked a question and they provided a response. Harry was asked why he left and he explained the security thing and the harassment he felt his wife received while working on behalf of the BRF. People wanted to know about the money deals he was making because some people said they were crass. He explained why he needed the money. His family no longer had security. He asked his father to continue providing security, at least until he could afford it himself and was denied. He was made moves and deals to take care of his family. What real man would not. Of course his explanation for needing money still was not and is not good enough for many of you. I guess y’all want the Suxxess to take the Cersie Walking of Shame. Not gonna happen. I hope H$M get all the money and never have to think
of asking Charles or William for help ever again. I am sure the first ask for security was difficult for a grown man to do.

He should thank his dad for turning him into an independent adult then. As long as he had handouts coming in where would be the motivation to make something of himself? Time to quit whining.

+1. Exactly. Sounds like Charles handled things well then.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Harry has “no money”?! He inherited $10 million from Diana! Sorry if that isn’t enough to live on, smh.

It’s not enough to cover security AND live when you’re getting death threats from White supremacists.

It was their choice to leave.

DP. I think they made the right choice. They were sacrificing their mental well-being in the UK for physical security. The UK tabloid was waging a constant campaign against Meghan with total lies (remember Megs' Commandments? - they came out in recanted it later) and quite frankly - the Sussexs were still receiving death threats in the UK as well.

And did you forget the whole impetus for them fleeing the UK was the BRF refusing not only titles for Archie but also the security that Harry has received his whole life?

Harassers were arrested for sending fake anthrax to Kensington Palace addressed to the couple, another man was sent to jail for calling Harry a race traitor, and another harasser showed up at Meghan's public engagement.

Royal family security is high-level but with Charles/William trying to strip their newborn of that same security, knowing what kind of threats they were receiving, I'd leave too.

This is false. Charles didn’t try to strip a newborn of security. He just decided to stop paying for it. Believe it or not, lots of adults support themselves and pay their own expenses.

Is that your way of declaring 'alternative facts'?

I'm seriously asking. Because Archie was born in the United Kingdom and taken home to Windsor Castle grounds. He was a newborn stripped of security.

Which makes me think back to the time period from May 2019 - November 2019 when Meghan didn't appear in public with her baby unless they were out of the country. She was afraid. Going on a foreign tour guaranteed high-level royal protection officers for her child. But in his own country - he was left defenseless.

Its even more odious that despite Charles & Andrew's acrimonious relationship the security for his daughters was never stripped until they reached the age of 18.

Defenseless? Yeah I don’t think so. Do you think if Meghan and Archie appeared in public and were attacked, the family’s security would have just stood by and let the baby be kidnapped or murdered? Maybe that would happen in a soap opera or something but that’s not real life.

In any case, if Meghan is so scared for her safety, then she made a really bad decision to go on Oprah. Any security consultant would advise her to keep a low profile.

Did you forget that someone broke into their home looking for Archie, but he was out with the nanny at the time. H&M was not with them, and the security was with H$M, not the nanny and Archie.

I disagree with your assessment about the interview. They needed to bring the darkness into the light. Why do you think they need to cower in fear and go underground? And doing the interview has made more people aware of the dangers they are facing as a family.

No one is saying they can’t have security. No one. It’s just that they need to pay for it themselves. Most responsible adults pay for things themselves. It’s not unusual. You’re flat-out wrong about the interview: If your paramount concern is safety, doing controversial interviews on international TV will make it more likely not less that you will be in danger. This isn’t hard to understand. Celebrities who protect their private lives and don’t do major TV spots or stage paparazzi photos are at less risk than more exposed celebrities. (It’s absurd to suggest that H&M did the interview for safety reasons. Get real.)

DP. Interview = money to pay for security. Their game is the only thing they have to monetize. There is nothing special about anyone in the entire royal family. Harry didn’t even graduate from college. They can’t both fade into obscurity and “pay for things themselves.”

No. They did not get paid for the interview. Their $$$ is coming from Spotify and Netflix and Harry’s endorsement deal with the mental health app.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You’re acting as if the money that Charles controls is his money that he earned. That’s not the case at all.

It’s money that’s been inherited over generations. The queen didn’t earn it. Charles didn’t earn it. It is earmarked for the family. Harry complaining about being cut off from his family trust is no more “mooching” than Charles or the queen are. It’s theirs by birth. Cutting off Harry’s access at a time when he had a young son and needed security was incredibly spiteful. His family turned their backs on him when he needed them the most. As is often said on this site: They showed him who they are and he believed them.

Judging by his success in the past year alone, he will never put himself in such a position again. Good for him. Good for his growing family.

That money is reserved for working members of the royal family. It's not theirs by birthright. Harry comes across incredibly entitled when he's tantruming about being denied "his" money. Paying for the security of a nonworking royal on ANOTHER CONTINENT? You must be joking.

It's almost as bad as Meghan bleating about Archie not "being titled the way other grandchildren are." What? Girl, did no one explain to you how the family works? There is no equal treatment across grandchildren. And there AREN'T any "other grandchildren", not really. Charles, the heir to the throne, has two children. There's William, who will be king. And there's Harry, who won't be king. The future king's children are princes. The children of someone who is not a future king are not. What part of it is not gettable? Or did they figure it would play better to the American audiences to imply that Archie was "stripped" of his title because of his mixed race origin?

It’s not reserved for working royals. There are two different pots of money. The Queen for example has money as part of the sovereign grant and her own personal inheritance which she can do whatever she wants with it. Same with Charles and everyone else. That’s how William has given money to his ILs to purchase properties and how Andrew supported his daughters prior to their marriages (they both work but don’t make enough to live the lifestyle they were). Ultimately, it’s Charles decision if he wants to give them money or not but all of the things they have done to monetize their celebrity are pretty foreseeable so don’t really feel bad for the royals either. The money is a means of control.

Why do any posters think they should be able to dictate how the BRF spend their money? Quite frankly, it’s not your money. You don’t get to control how other people choose to spend their money. Are you guys this presumptuous and obnoxious irl? If the Queen or Charles don’t want to spend their money on a grown adult man who doesn’t want to pay for things himself, that’s their right.

Huh? I agreed with that. But if his goal is for them not to do embarrassing things for money then practically he needs to give him money. I don’t get the pearl clutching over them doing the Oprah interview when Prince Charles knows Harry has no money and no marketable skills.

They are wealthy. They choose to live in an expensive mansion. No one owes them anything - Harry and His First Wife would have been just fine living on his inheritance most anywhere in the world.

That is bull. You have people on DCUM claiming they cannot retire and live on less than $10million, and yet they don’t have to worry about hiring security, body guards, college expenses and a new home. Harry reportedly inherited $10 million and Meghan net worth prior to marriage reportedly $5 million. If DCUM cannot do it on $10million with a paid off house and college expenses, how in the hell can they do it, paying for security due to threats from nut jobs like people in this thread.

+100

Plus people on dcum are talking about retiring at a normal retirement age not at 38-39 with a child under 2. $10 million is really not enough in that circumstance. Also if you develop Alzheimer’s or dementia and end up in a memory care unit you can blow through millions of dollars much quicker than you think. Ask me how I know....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Harry has “no money”?! He inherited $10 million from Diana! Sorry if that isn’t enough to live on, smh.

It’s not enough to cover security AND live when you’re getting death threats from White supremacists.

It was their choice to leave.

DP. I think they made the right choice. They were sacrificing their mental well-being in the UK for physical security. The UK tabloid was waging a constant campaign against Meghan with total lies (remember Megs' Commandments? - they came out in recanted it later) and quite frankly - the Sussexs were still receiving death threats in the UK as well.

And did you forget the whole impetus for them fleeing the UK was the BRF refusing not only titles for Archie but also the security that Harry has received his whole life?

Harassers were arrested for sending fake anthrax to Kensington Palace addressed to the couple, another man was sent to jail for calling Harry a race traitor, and another harasser showed up at Meghan's public engagement.

Royal family security is high-level but with Charles/William trying to strip their newborn of that same security, knowing what kind of threats they were receiving, I'd leave too.

This is false. Charles didn’t try to strip a newborn of security. He just decided to stop paying for it. Believe it or not, lots of adults support themselves and pay their own expenses.

Is that your way of declaring 'alternative facts'?

I'm seriously asking. Because Archie was born in the United Kingdom and taken home to Windsor Castle grounds. He was a newborn stripped of security.

Which makes me think back to the time period from May 2019 - November 2019 when Meghan didn't appear in public with her baby unless they were out of the country. She was afraid. Going on a foreign tour guaranteed high-level royal protection officers for her child. But in his own country - he was left defenseless.

Its even more odious that despite Charles & Andrew's acrimonious relationship the security for his daughters was never stripped until they reached the age of 18.

Defenseless? Yeah I don’t think so. Do you think if Meghan and Archie appeared in public and were attacked, the family’s security would have just stood by and let the baby be kidnapped or murdered? Maybe that would happen in a soap opera or something but that’s not real life.

In any case, if Meghan is so scared for her safety, then she made a really bad decision to go on Oprah. Any security consultant would advise her to keep a low profile.

Did you forget that someone broke into their home looking for Archie, but he was out with the nanny at the time. H&M was not with them, and the security was with H$M, not the nanny and Archie.

I disagree with your assessment about the interview. They needed to bring the darkness into the light. Why do you think they need to cower in fear and go underground? And doing the interview has made more people aware of the dangers they are facing as a family.

No one is saying they can’t have security. No one. It’s just that they need to pay for it themselves. Most responsible adults pay for things themselves. It’s not unusual. You’re flat-out wrong about the interview: If your paramount concern is safety, doing controversial interviews on international TV will make it more likely not less that you will be in danger. This isn’t hard to understand. Celebrities who protect their private lives and don’t do major TV spots or stage paparazzi photos are at less risk than more exposed celebrities. (It’s absurd to suggest that H&M did the interview for safety reasons. Get real.)

DP. Interview = money to pay for security. Their game is the only thing they have to monetize. There is nothing special about anyone in the entire royal family. Harry didn’t even graduate from college. They can’t both fade into obscurity and “pay for things themselves.”

No. They did not get paid for the interview. Their $$$ is coming from Spotify and Netflix and Harry’s endorsement deal with the mental health app.

Sigh. Are you this slow in real life? The interview maintains interest in them which in turn promotes their ventures. You ever notice that actual A-list celebrities do interviews despite not getting paid for them?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Harry has “no money”?! He inherited $10 million from Diana! Sorry if that isn’t enough to live on, smh.

It’s not enough to cover security AND live when you’re getting death threats from White supremacists.

It was their choice to leave.

DP. I think they made the right choice. They were sacrificing their mental well-being in the UK for physical security. The UK tabloid was waging a constant campaign against Meghan with total lies (remember Megs' Commandments? - they came out in recanted it later) and quite frankly - the Sussexs were still receiving death threats in the UK as well.

And did you forget the whole impetus for them fleeing the UK was the BRF refusing not only titles for Archie but also the security that Harry has received his whole life?

Harassers were arrested for sending fake anthrax to Kensington Palace addressed to the couple, another man was sent to jail for calling Harry a race traitor, and another harasser showed up at Meghan's public engagement.

Royal family security is high-level but with Charles/William trying to strip their newborn of that same security, knowing what kind of threats they were receiving, I'd leave too.

This is false. Charles didn’t try to strip a newborn of security. He just decided to stop paying for it. Believe it or not, lots of adults support themselves and pay their own expenses.

Is that your way of declaring 'alternative facts'?

I'm seriously asking. Because Archie was born in the United Kingdom and taken home to Windsor Castle grounds. He was a newborn stripped of security.

Which makes me think back to the time period from May 2019 - November 2019 when Meghan didn't appear in public with her baby unless they were out of the country. She was afraid. Going on a foreign tour guaranteed high-level royal protection officers for her child. But in his own country - he was left defenseless.

Its even more odious that despite Charles & Andrew's acrimonious relationship the security for his daughters was never stripped until they reached the age of 18.

Defenseless? Yeah I don’t think so. Do you think if Meghan and Archie appeared in public and were attacked, the family’s security would have just stood by and let the baby be kidnapped or murdered? Maybe that would happen in a soap opera or something but that’s not real life.

In any case, if Meghan is so scared for her safety, then she made a really bad decision to go on Oprah. Any security consultant would advise her to keep a low profile.

Did you forget that someone broke into their home looking for Archie, but he was out with the nanny at the time. H&M was not with them, and the security was with H$M, not the nanny and Archie.

I disagree with your assessment about the interview. They needed to bring the darkness into the light. Why do you think they need to cower in fear and go underground? And doing the interview has made more people aware of the dangers they are facing as a family.

No one is saying they can’t have security. No one. It’s just that they need to pay for it themselves. Most responsible adults pay for things themselves. It’s not unusual. You’re flat-out wrong about the interview: If your paramount concern is safety, doing controversial interviews on international TV will make it more likely not less that you will be in danger. This isn’t hard to understand. Celebrities who protect their private lives and don’t do major TV spots or stage paparazzi photos are at less risk than more exposed celebrities. (It’s absurd to suggest that H&M did the interview for safety reasons. Get real.)

DP. Interview = money to pay for security. Their game is the only thing they have to monetize. There is nothing special about anyone in the entire royal family. Harry didn’t even graduate from college. They can’t both fade into obscurity and “pay for things themselves.”

No. They did not get paid for the interview. Their $$$ is coming from Spotify and Netflix and Harry’s endorsement deal with the mental health app.

Sigh. Are you this slow in real life? The interview maintains interest in them which in turn promotes their ventures. You ever notice that actual A-list celebrities do interviews despite not getting paid for them?

So you admit they are purposely trying to drum up public interest in themselves as celebrities in order to make money while at the same time whining about the press, paparazzi, and lack of privacy? Sounds pretty hypocritical to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You’re acting as if the money that Charles controls is his money that he earned. That’s not the case at all.

It’s money that’s been inherited over generations. The queen didn’t earn it. Charles didn’t earn it. It is earmarked for the family. Harry complaining about being cut off from his family trust is no more “mooching” than Charles or the queen are. It’s theirs by birth. Cutting off Harry’s access at a time when he had a young son and needed security was incredibly spiteful. His family turned their backs on him when he needed them the most. As is often said on this site: They showed him who they are and he believed them.

Judging by his success in the past year alone, he will never put himself in such a position again. Good for him. Good for his growing family.

That money is reserved for working members of the royal family. It's not theirs by birthright. Harry comes across incredibly entitled when he's tantruming about being denied "his" money. Paying for the security of a nonworking royal on ANOTHER CONTINENT? You must be joking.

It's almost as bad as Meghan bleating about Archie not "being titled the way other grandchildren are." What? Girl, did no one explain to you how the family works? There is no equal treatment across grandchildren. And there AREN'T any "other grandchildren", not really. Charles, the heir to the throne, has two children. There's William, who will be king. And there's Harry, who won't be king. The future king's children are princes. The children of someone who is not a future king are not. What part of it is not gettable? Or did they figure it would play better to the American audiences to imply that Archie was "stripped" of his title because of his mixed race origin?

It’s not reserved for working royals. There are two different pots of money. The Queen for example has money as part of the sovereign grant and her own personal inheritance which she can do whatever she wants with it. Same with Charles and everyone else. That’s how William has given money to his ILs to purchase properties and how Andrew supported his daughters prior to their marriages (they both work but don’t make enough to live the lifestyle they were). Ultimately, it’s Charles decision if he wants to give them money or not but all of the things they have done to monetize their celebrity are pretty foreseeable so don’t really feel bad for the royals either. The money is a means of control.

Why do any posters think they should be able to dictate how the BRF spend their money? Quite frankly, it’s not your money. You don’t get to control how other people choose to spend their money. Are you guys this presumptuous and obnoxious irl? If the Queen or Charles don’t want to spend their money on a grown adult man who doesn’t want to pay for things himself, that’s their right.

Huh? I agreed with that. But if his goal is for them not to do embarrassing things for money then practically he needs to give him money. I don’t get the pearl clutching over them doing the Oprah interview when Prince Charles knows Harry has no money and no marketable skills.

They are wealthy. They choose to live in an expensive mansion. No one owes them anything - Harry and His First Wife would have been just fine living on his inheritance most anywhere in the world.

That is bull. You have people on DCUM claiming they cannot retire and live on less than $10million, and yet they don’t have to worry about hiring security, body guards, college expenses and a new home. Harry reportedly inherited $10 million and Meghan net worth prior to marriage reportedly $5 million. If DCUM cannot do it on $10million with a paid off house and college expenses, how in the hell can they do it, paying for security due to threats from nut jobs like people in this thread.

+100

Plus people on dcum are talking about retiring at a normal retirement age not at 38-39 with a child under 2. $10 million is really not enough in that circumstance. Also if you develop Alzheimer’s or dementia and end up in a memory care unit you can blow through millions of dollars much quicker than you think. Ask me how I know....

It’s a sad state of affairs indeed when a couple with tens of millions of dollars cannot live within their means.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If security was the reason they left, why was their own published statement on their departure all about their complaints regarding the Royal Rota (press)? Why did they not state the actual reason they were leaving? They are trying to rewrite history and make themselves sound less greedy.

Here is their reasoning, as they first told it to the public, before they starting rewriting things.

https://www.townandcountrymag.com/society/tradition/a30480923/prince-harry-megahn-markle-royal-rota-system/

Did you not read the statement on your link?

What exactly do you think they meant when they said they wanted financial independence?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If security was the reason they left, why was their own published statement on their departure all about their complaints regarding the Royal Rota (press)? Why did they not state the actual reason they were leaving? They are trying to rewrite history and make themselves sound less greedy.

Here is their reasoning, as they first told it to the public, before they starting rewriting things.

https://www.townandcountrymag.com/society/tradition/a30480923/prince-harry-megahn-markle-royal-rota-system/

Did you not read the statement on your link?

What exactly do you think they meant when they said they wanted financial independence?

That’s why the security was stripped, and reasonably so. M and H didn’t like playing second fiddle to the Cambridge’s, and Meghan didn’t want the life of a minor royal in the UK because she was never going to be the star. She saw it as a launching pad to be a rich global celebrity humanitarian, like Angelina Jolie. When she realized it wasn’t going to happen within the structure of the BRF, she decided to leave for Hollywood, where Americans who weren’t familiar with the BRF would lap up the “American Princess” thing and would allow her to trade on that to make $$ (“financial independence”). Her problem was that she thought she could do this while also maintaining the cachet of being a senior Royal, because that’s what drives the interest and makes her the money. She and Harry were told no by the BRF, because working members of the family do not do commercial deals to enrich themselves personally, and that they would have to choose between doing that and maintaining their status as senior Royals. If you’re not a senior Royal, you don’t get security paid for by the family (see Beatrice, Eugenia, Zara, etc.) She didn’t like that, and this is the tantrum she chose to throw about it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If security was the reason they left, why was their own published statement on their departure all about their complaints regarding the Royal Rota (press)? Why did they not state the actual reason they were leaving? They are trying to rewrite history and make themselves sound less greedy.

Here is their reasoning, as they first told it to the public, before they starting rewriting things.

https://www.townandcountrymag.com/society/tradition/a30480923/prince-harry-megahn-markle-royal-rota-system/

Did you not read the statement on your link?

What exactly do you think they meant when they said they wanted financial independence?

That they want to be paid for photos of themselves, not give them away for free like the BRF does. They hated that William’s allowance was bigger than theirs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Harry has “no money”?! He inherited $10 million from Diana! Sorry if that isn’t enough to live on, smh.

It’s not enough to cover security AND live when you’re getting death threats from White supremacists.

It was their choice to leave.

DP. I think they made the right choice. They were sacrificing their mental well-being in the UK for physical security. The UK tabloid was waging a constant campaign against Meghan with total lies (remember Megs' Commandments? - they came out in recanted it later) and quite frankly - the Sussexs were still receiving death threats in the UK as well.

And did you forget the whole impetus for them fleeing the UK was the BRF refusing not only titles for Archie but also the security that Harry has received his whole life?

Harassers were arrested for sending fake anthrax to Kensington Palace addressed to the couple, another man was sent to jail for calling Harry a race traitor, and another harasser showed up at Meghan's public engagement.

Royal family security is high-level but with Charles/William trying to strip their newborn of that same security, knowing what kind of threats they were receiving, I'd leave too.

This is false. Charles didn’t try to strip a newborn of security. He just decided to stop paying for it. Believe it or not, lots of adults support themselves and pay their own expenses.

Is that your way of declaring 'alternative facts'?

I'm seriously asking. Because Archie was born in the United Kingdom and taken home to Windsor Castle grounds. He was a newborn stripped of security.

Which makes me think back to the time period from May 2019 - November 2019 when Meghan didn't appear in public with her baby unless they were out of the country. She was afraid. Going on a foreign tour guaranteed high-level royal protection officers for her child. But in his own country - he was left defenseless.

Its even more odious that despite Charles & Andrew's acrimonious relationship the security for his daughters was never stripped until they reached the age of 18.

Defenseless? Yeah I don’t think so. Do you think if Meghan and Archie appeared in public and were attacked, the family’s security would have just stood by and let the baby be kidnapped or murdered? Maybe that would happen in a soap opera or something but that’s not real life.

In any case, if Meghan is so scared for her safety, then she made a really bad decision to go on Oprah. Any security consultant would advise her to keep a low profile.

Did you forget that someone broke into their home looking for Archie, but he was out with the nanny at the time. H&M was not with them, and the security was with H$M, not the nanny and Archie.

I disagree with your assessment about the interview. They needed to bring the darkness into the light. Why do you think they need to cower in fear and go underground? And doing the interview has made more people aware of the dangers they are facing as a family.

No one is saying they can’t have security. No one. It’s just that they need to pay for it themselves. Most responsible adults pay for things themselves. It’s not unusual. You’re flat-out wrong about the interview: If your paramount concern is safety, doing controversial interviews on international TV will make it more likely not less that you will be in danger. This isn’t hard to understand. Celebrities who protect their private lives and don’t do major TV spots or stage paparazzi photos are at less risk than more exposed celebrities. (It’s absurd to suggest that H&M did the interview for safety reasons. Get real.)

DP. Interview = money to pay for security. Their game is the only thing they have to monetize. There is nothing special about anyone in the entire royal family. Harry didn’t even graduate from college. They can’t both fade into obscurity and “pay for things themselves.”

No. They did not get paid for the interview. Their $$$ is coming from Spotify and Netflix and Harry’s endorsement deal with the mental health app.

Sigh. Are you this slow in real life? The interview maintains interest in them which in turn promotes their ventures. You ever notice that actual A-list celebrities do interviews despite not getting paid for them?

So you admit they are purposely trying to drum up public interest in themselves as celebrities in order to make money while at the same time whining about the press, paparazzi, and lack of privacy? Sounds pretty hypocritical to me.

Yes. I personally just don’t think that being a hypocrite from a family of hypocrites is worth all of this hate. And I also don’t think you can complain about them not wanting to pay their bills and also complain about them monetizing their royal connections.